Greg Palast

[streetsmart1980]

Are there any skeptical analysis of Greg Palast and his claims? He makes some pretty radical statements, like "Bush stole the election from Gore and Kerry", "African Americans were kept from voting in Florida", "Bush had two documents and plans crafted to invade Iraq, before 9/11" and some sort of crazy story about Bush senior being linked to some kind of Gold Mining scandal.

In my mind he seems like a viable source when compared with CNN or Fox news. Is Greg Palast a for real guy, or is he like a Michael Moore for whom facts and authentic journalism are irrelevant. I am currently trying to read 'Armed Madhouse' by Palast and can't figure out if it is supposed to be 'real' or 'fiction'. He makes jokes and exaggerations and it makes it hard to take things too seriously.




metamars had said in another post

My sense of things is that he's very good at acquiring valid information, both by dint of his spadework, and also because reliable people pass him inside information.

However, I do wonder about some claims that seem merely plausible, at best. While I've no doubt at all that the Iraq invasion was largely about oil, I find it hard to believe that the plan all along was to get it above a certain price. Of course, the oil people are ecstatic about that, but that's no proof of anything. Likewise, the "secret" meetings that Cheney was having with the oil people. I don't recall Palast reporting anything solid about a target price. I think the goal was basically control. Given control, profits are sure to follow.

IOW, I don't think this particular claim about a price goal has any smoking gun evidence. It does make for a dramatic sound bite, though.

I recently heard him talk about a "red line in the sand" that apparently is based on historical fact, but these facts go back to the early part of the last century (IIRC). They certainly can't prove anything about the last 7 years.

I do believe his story about caging lists in Florida in '00 are accurate, and Bush was "elected" due to fraud. Don't even get me started about '04.

 

[T.A.M.]

Not my area of interest, but I am sure someone here can help you. I am bumping this, because it is refreshing to have a non 9/11 related thread in here...

TAM

 

[BigAl]

I've heard Palast speak but I was unable to get a chance to ask him about his 200 election claims. IMO, his specific claims about leaked voter caging lists deserve a formal investigation that don't know has been done. (I am not a Twoofer.)

Of course, until they are investigated and found to be factual, we can't say that even if Palst's claims are true, it was enough to flip the results. So many things went wrong in Florida and it was so close that I think the results are unknowable. For a good read, try Steal This Vote, by Gumbel, a history of voting shenanigan in American history.

My grip is with the SCotUS preempint the Florida SC.

FWIW, BBC and Guardian also use his work, not that every claim doesn't have to be considered on it's won merits.

 

[Brainster]

Palast is agenda driven. Had Al Gore won Florida in 2000 I can guarantee you Palast would have spent no time investigating the results in that state. But because Bush won by the slimmest of margins, Palast "knew" that something had to be wrong. Hence he acted completely like a conspiracy theorist, starting from the conclusion and working backwards for evidence.

As for Ohio 2004, anybody who believes that the Republicans could cheat enough to turn a loss there into a 118,000-vote (or so) win might as well stop voting. The "evidence" offered by Palast and others there is laughable.

I would not at all be surprised to hear that Bush planned to invade Iraq and topple Saddam prior to 9-11.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've heard Palast speak but I was unable to get a chance to ask him about his 200 election claims. IMO, his specific claims about leaked voter caging lists deserve a formal investigation that don't know has been done. (I am not a Twoofer.)

Of course, until they are investigated and found to be factual, we can't say that even if Palst's claims are true, it was enough to flip the results. So many things went wrong in Florida and it was so close that I think the results are unknowable. For a good read, try Steal This Vote, by Gumbel, a history of voting shenanigan in American history.

My grip is with the SCotUS preempint the Florida SC.

FWIW, BBC and Guardian also use his work, not that every claim doesn't have to be considered on it's won merits.

ISTR visiting Palst's site once and thinking that some of it was a bit over the top.

What is puzzling to me as a Canadian is why the results of the NAACP's claim against the State of Florida did not receive more publicity.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/politics/main520754.shtml
People were disenfranchised. People who most likely would have not voted for Bush. Many more than 537. The election was "stolen" but, presumably because the US Constitution provided for no way to fix things, the best outcome was "we promise to do better next time. Curious system you have.

 

[streetsmart1980]

Thanks for the feedback. Brainster, I agree that it appears that Greg Palast seems to be working backward from a conspiracy theory and then finds the "evidence" to support it.

I have only followed politics superficially, but I have noticed there are a lot of people out there like Greg Palast who say interesting and sometimes outrageous things with a bit of charisma mixed in. If you don't use your brain and just listen to them you can definitely get mesmerized and convinced of all sorts of illogical and preposterous things.

Michael Savage is a really passionate and hard core guy on the radio and he will say the opposite thing from one day to the next. Noam Chomsky will analyze things and complain about people being guilty of war crimes for all sorts of reasons. Bill O'Reilley will expose the culture wars and the anti-americans attacking this country from within. How about Anne Coulter who just is crazy and rude. They are all just acting as personalities and complaining. My favorites are Colbert, John Stewart and Bill Mahr because of the comedy that is mixed into their program. Bill Maher is an intelligent guy, but I am skeptical of anyone who gets all upset and emotional about things like Politics.

I listened to Al Gore's speech from the TedTalks and he hit the nail on the head for me: "Get involved in Politics, don't stay an arms length away, be involved with your Democracy". That really says it for me. I want to get involved and do something, rather than listen to all these emotional conspiracy theorists try to mesmerize me with their gossip and complaints. I don't have the time nor the ability to verify all their claims. I can however run for small local offices.

Thanks for all the great comments.

 

[pomeroo]

Are there any skeptical analysis of Greg Palast and his claims? He makes some pretty radical statements, like "Bush stole the election from Gore and Kerry", "African Americans were kept from voting in Florida", "Bush had two documents and plans crafted to invade Iraq, before 9/11" and some sort of crazy story about Bush senior being linked to some kind of Gold Mining scandal.

In my mind he seems like a viable source when compared with CNN or Fox news. Is Greg Palast a for real guy, or is he like a Michael Moore for whom facts and authentic journalism are irrelevant. I am currently trying to read 'Armed Madhouse' by Palast and can't figure out if it is supposed to be 'real' or 'fiction'. He makes jokes and exaggerations and it makes it hard to take things too seriously.




metamars had said in another post

My sense of things is that he's very good at acquiring valid information, both by dint of his spadework, and also because reliable people pass him inside information.

However, I do wonder about some claims that seem merely plausible, at best. While I've no doubt at all that the Iraq invasion was largely about oil, I find it hard to believe that the plan all along was to get it above a certain price. Of course, the oil people are ecstatic about that, but that's no proof of anything. Likewise, the "secret" meetings that Cheney was having with the oil people. I don't recall Palast reporting anything solid about a target price. I think the goal was basically control. Given control, profits are sure to follow.

IOW, I don't think this particular claim about a price goal has any smoking gun evidence. It does make for a dramatic sound bite, though.

I recently heard him talk about a "red line in the sand" that apparently is based on historical fact, but these facts go back to the early part of the last century (IIRC). They certainly can't prove anything about the last 7 years.

I do believe his story about caging lists in Florida in '00 are accurate, and Bush was "elected" due to fraud. Don't even get me started about '04.

This really belongs in the politics forum, but Palast's claims about Florida in the 2000 election were demolished by Peter Kirsanow in several essays and by Abigail Thernstrom in her dissent to Mary Berry's tendentious Civil Rights Commission Report. The most comprehensive refutation of the far-left's falsehoods regarding the 2004 election, falsehoods that were not embraced by the Kerry campaign, is the work of Democratic pollster Mark Blumenthal. Check the archives on pollster.com for his articles on exit polls (a four-part series, "Was RFK Jr. Right About the Exit Polls?").

 

[stilicho]

Palast is agenda driven.

Agreed.

He also slightly modifies his bombast depending on for whom he is writing.

Greg Palast is a really good example of free speech though, as is Alexander Cockburn. Both of them argue that their voices are "stifled" but they continue to make a very comfortable living dispensing radicalism to those who like that sort of thing. If the world worked the way they think it does then they would be dead.

 

[pomeroo]

ISTR visiting Palst's site once and thinking that some of it was a bit over the top.

What is puzzling to me as a Canadian is why the results of the NAACP's claim against the State of Florida did not receive more publicity.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/politics/main520754.shtml
People were disenfranchised. People who most likely would have not voted for Bush. Many more than 537. The election was "stolen" but, presumably because the US Constitution provided for no way to fix things, the best outcome was "we promise to do better next time. Curious system you have.

The 2000 election was almost stolen: the major networks insisted that all Florida polls had closed when polls in the heavily Republican panhandle region of the state were scheduled to remain open for another hour. Republican estimates of Bush's net loss ran as high as 20,000 votes. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel estimates that Bush's net loss was "only" 7-10,000 votes. Democratic vote fraud in Palm Beach County cost Bush another 10-15,000 votes.

Palast's lies about disenfranchisement were exposed by Peter Kirsanow and Abigail Thernstrom. It is certain that 6,000 felons voted illegally, overwhelmingly for Gore.